Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
one-State solution in reality
The "two-state" option is clearly the default option, for a variety of reasons:
- The politicians have invested their efforts in promoting this
solution for decades.
- The power of the politicians on both sides of the conflict will be
preserved only if there remain two separate countries.
- There is no popular movement promoting a "one-State" solution.
-Neither side seems to possess the necessary tolerance towards the
other to make a "one-State" solution possible.
- The politicians have invested their efforts in promoting this
solution for decades.
- The power of the politicians on both sides of the conflict will be
preserved only if there remain two separate countries.
- There is no popular movement promoting a "one-State" solution.
-Neither side seems to possess the necessary tolerance towards the
other to make a "one-State" solution possible.
I've read many articles and essays regarding a one-State solution for
the Palestinian – Israeli conflict. They all seem to have one theme -
by winning the battle for land the evil Zionists have reversed the
victory of the War of Independence. By making impossible the
re-partition of the country they have doomed the Jews of Israel to
minority status in the re-born, unified State of Palestine.
I would like to present a somewhat different perspective on the matter.
Firstly, Ariel Sharon's "Disengagement" from the Gaza Strip has turned
the tables on the opinion that the "settlers" cannot be removed from
the West Bank. I can attest to the fact that the Settlers are beside
themselves now that it is clear that the Likud party can no longer be
relied upon to stand in the way of their expulsion. If 8500 settlers
can be expelled in a week chances are the 85 to 100 thousand who will
not be annexed to Israel within the framework of the "Geneva Accords"
can be expelled within the 30 months specified in the agreement.
Secondly, Yossi Beilin's "Geneva Accords" can easily follow the
precedent set by his "Oslo Accords" by being adopted by the Labor
party the moment they regain power. Thus the "Two State" solution is
alive and well in my opinion.
In light of the fact that the options facing the residents of Israel
and the Occupied Territories are becoming increasingly substantial and
concrete, the window of opportunity to choose between them is rapidly
closing.
The "two-state" option is clearly the default option, for a variety of reasons:
- The politicians have invested their efforts in promoting this
solution for decades.
- The power of the politicians on both sides of the conflict will be
preserved only if there remain two separate countries.
- There is no popular movement promoting a "one-State" solution.
-Neither side seems to possess the necessary tolerance towards the
other to make a "one-State" solution possible.
Though I expect a Labor government to adopt the Geneva Accords as
their policy, I doubt even they would accept it in its pure form. I
would expect them to insist upon the following modifications:
1) Financial – the Geneva Accords in their present form would
bankrupt Israel. Israel cannot agree to give a blank check to an
international panel of "experts" to decide how many billions of
dollars Israel owes the Refugees in compensation. At best Israel would
agree to finance the relocation of the Settlers (if the U.S. and/or
other benefactors arrange long term loans to cover the cost). As
suggested in the Accords, the infrastructure Israel abandons in the
territories will have to serve as adequate compensation. After all,
from Israel's point of view, had the UN partition plan been adopted by
the Arabs in 1948 no refugee problem would have arisen and the end
result would for the Palestinians would have been far superior to that
which they would achieve with the acceptance of the "Geneva Accords"
today.
2) Territorial – the principle presented in the Geneva Accords as to
the borders being the pre -1967 armistice lines, with a 1:1 land swap
adjustment to accommodate the annexation of large numbers of settlers
has merit. I suspect that Israel would find it in its interest that
areas in the Galilee adjacent to the border and populated largely by
Israeli Arabs be included in the swap.
3) Refugees – Israel will undoubtedly reject the premise that it must
accept refugees equal to the average accepted by third-party
countries. At best Israel might agree to consider accepting a number
of refugees on the basis of family reunification, where the refugees
are relatives of Israeli Arabs.
4) Jerusalem – If Israel is to retain the Jewish Quarter of the Old
City then it will prefer the Quarter to be isolated from the Arab
Quarters and open to the Israeli sector outside the Old City, rather
than open to the remainder of the Old City and isolated from the
Israeli sector outside the Old City. This will also simplify security
and sovereignty issues.
5) Security – Israel will continue to object to any foreign military
presence in Palestine. Once Israel withdraws from the territories, an
international military force can only provide the Palestinians with
immunity from retaliation for attacks against Israel. Paradoxically,
from Israel's perspective, their presence would encourage attacks
against Israel rather than preventing them. I suspect that some of the
security concessions Beilin negotiated into the Accords, such as the
"Early Warning Stations", are superfluous and will be replaced by
airborne and satellite surveillance.
I doubt that even Labor will be able to conclude negotiations without
most of these modifications being included in the final agreement. If
accepted then the Palestinians will have achieved the following:
- End of the "occupation"
- Removal of all settlers and Israeli military forces from the
occupied territories
- Creation of a sovereign Palestinian State, free of the corrupting
influence of Zionist culture and society
- Initiation of the process of resettlement and compensation of the Refugees
- Eventual construction of an express highway and probably rail line
connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip
- Opening of international airport and construction of commercial seaport
Israel will have its separation, even reducing the percentage of Arabs
in its population. It will rely on the IDF to guarantee quiet from
across the wall isolating it from the alien Arab society beyond.
Politically and economically it should be significantly better off
than it is today.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, will be on their own to meet the
challenge of building the society and environment they aspire to.
Unfortunately, confidence in their ability to build a successful and
flourishing country is low. Experience has shown that the Palestinians
tend to blame their failures on others rather than expending the
effort required to succeed. I would wish them all possible success,
though I fear the Palestinian State will be plagued by violence,
hunger, poverty, overcrowding, and rampant political corruption; in
other words a continuation of the current situation in the Gaza Strip
since the "disengagement".
The second option is not currently a practical reality; however it
could become one with effort on the part of its proponents. The
realistic one-State option which could come about would differ
substantially from that described in the articles I've read promoting
a one-State solution. Their authors seem to think Israelis will raise
their hands and say "Zionism is dead; long live the secular State of
Palestine". I don't think so. The politics of democracy don't work
that way. The process of change in a democracy requires the
accumulation of political power and involves forming alliances and
finding common interests. This will not happen overnight and these
newly elected Arab parliamentary representatives will have to contend
with seasoned opponents.
A likely scenario would take the following form:
- Israel officially annexes the occupied territories.
- Institutions and functionaries of the PA are integrated into
parallel institutions of the Israeli government.
- The vast majority of Palestinians are registered as Israeli
citizens, equal in rights and responsibilities to the existing Israeli
Arab population.
- Following parliamentary elections the proportional representation of
Arabs in the Knesset increases substantially.
- Due to this increased parliamentary clout legislation is passed
accommodating the needs and desires of the Israeli Arab community,
without harming the interests of the Israeli Jewish community.
What would not occur, at least not within the first few decades
following annexation, is the formation of an Arab dominated
parliamentary coalition, which converts the Jewish State of Israel
into the "bi-national" State of Palestine. Be assured that initially
the Arab representation in the Knesset will be in the minority, and
the Jewish majority will do all in its power to maintain their
majority. To do this you can be certain that they will not allow the
law-of-return for Jews to be repealed or for a similar law to be
enacted for Arabs. If anything they will attempt to enact immigration
laws which maintain a balance between Arab and Jewish immigration, in
order to sustain the Jewish parliamentary majority in the Jewish
State.
This may seem racist however I have yet to find an example where the
politicians in a democracy commit political suicide by assisting a
minority to overpower them politically. Short of achieving the power
to dominate the Jewish population however, the Arab community will
have sufficient political power to achieve social and economic parity
with the Jews, making them the most prosperous Arabic community in the
region.
In time the interaction between the two communities will have evolved
into a relationship of mutual benefit and respect; where equal
opportunities and prosperity will be combined with the ability to live
according to the culture and lifestyle each individual desires.
These are the two options on the table as far as I can see, and one of
the two will likely become a reality within the next few years. I can
guarantee a tremendous number of Rightist Zionists who would prefer
the one-State option over relinquishing their homes and communities in
Judea and Samaria; as well as Orthodox Jews who consider Judea and
Samaria the heartland of biblical Israel, and cynics who expect
Katyusha rockets to rain upon Israel as soon as Palestine becomes a
State. Perhaps there are those from the Peace movements who also
believe that unification is morally superior to separation.
The key question however is, given a true understanding of their
choices, are there any Palestinian Arabs who would prefer the
one-State option? Only they can cause it to come about – either
through substantial grass-roots support, or by allowing negotiations
over the Geneva Accords to fail, thereby causing the Israeli Right to
seize power and annex the territories unilaterally.
I've read over and over how Israeli Arabs are second class citizens.
This has always seemed strange to me for several reasons. Firstly,
every time I hear of a legal case where Arab Israelis sue for equal
treatment the courts find in their favor. Secondly, far from the
pitiful image second class status evokes, most Israeli Arab
neighborhoods and villages I've seen have been filled with large,
lavishly decorated homes. And lastly, I have been led to believe
Israeli Arabs treasure their citizenship and would object strenuously
to its revocation. If this is true perhaps it would be wise to ask
them what they find so agreeable about being second class Israeli
citizens. In fact it would be likely that Israeli Arabs faced with
possible revocation of their Israeli citizenship as part of the Geneva
deal would also support the one-State option (the Geneva Accords in
its original form includes the revocation of the Israeli citizenship
of Arabs living in East Jerusalem).
Personally, I've always been a proponent of co-existence. In my view
the "leftists" who criticize settlers as undemocratic, are the ones
who cannot abide the idea of living alongside Arabs. I harbor no
hatred towards anyone. I do have difficulty showing tolerance toward
those who have no tolerance towards me, whether these individuals are
those Arabs who want to shoot me, blow me up or merely chase me away;
or Jews who have difficulty with the fact that I am religious or that
I see nothing wrong with a Jew living in an area which, 38 years ago,
was occupied by Jordan for 19 years. Yet if the decision is made that
I will have to abandon the home I spent the last 15 years building
with my own hands, and the community I have become an integral member
of, then I will adapt, with no regrets, to my new home. It's up to you
now. Choose well, for both our sakes.
C. Handler
Samaria
handlevy [at] gmail.com
the Palestinian – Israeli conflict. They all seem to have one theme -
by winning the battle for land the evil Zionists have reversed the
victory of the War of Independence. By making impossible the
re-partition of the country they have doomed the Jews of Israel to
minority status in the re-born, unified State of Palestine.
I would like to present a somewhat different perspective on the matter.
Firstly, Ariel Sharon's "Disengagement" from the Gaza Strip has turned
the tables on the opinion that the "settlers" cannot be removed from
the West Bank. I can attest to the fact that the Settlers are beside
themselves now that it is clear that the Likud party can no longer be
relied upon to stand in the way of their expulsion. If 8500 settlers
can be expelled in a week chances are the 85 to 100 thousand who will
not be annexed to Israel within the framework of the "Geneva Accords"
can be expelled within the 30 months specified in the agreement.
Secondly, Yossi Beilin's "Geneva Accords" can easily follow the
precedent set by his "Oslo Accords" by being adopted by the Labor
party the moment they regain power. Thus the "Two State" solution is
alive and well in my opinion.
In light of the fact that the options facing the residents of Israel
and the Occupied Territories are becoming increasingly substantial and
concrete, the window of opportunity to choose between them is rapidly
closing.
The "two-state" option is clearly the default option, for a variety of reasons:
- The politicians have invested their efforts in promoting this
solution for decades.
- The power of the politicians on both sides of the conflict will be
preserved only if there remain two separate countries.
- There is no popular movement promoting a "one-State" solution.
-Neither side seems to possess the necessary tolerance towards the
other to make a "one-State" solution possible.
Though I expect a Labor government to adopt the Geneva Accords as
their policy, I doubt even they would accept it in its pure form. I
would expect them to insist upon the following modifications:
1) Financial – the Geneva Accords in their present form would
bankrupt Israel. Israel cannot agree to give a blank check to an
international panel of "experts" to decide how many billions of
dollars Israel owes the Refugees in compensation. At best Israel would
agree to finance the relocation of the Settlers (if the U.S. and/or
other benefactors arrange long term loans to cover the cost). As
suggested in the Accords, the infrastructure Israel abandons in the
territories will have to serve as adequate compensation. After all,
from Israel's point of view, had the UN partition plan been adopted by
the Arabs in 1948 no refugee problem would have arisen and the end
result would for the Palestinians would have been far superior to that
which they would achieve with the acceptance of the "Geneva Accords"
today.
2) Territorial – the principle presented in the Geneva Accords as to
the borders being the pre -1967 armistice lines, with a 1:1 land swap
adjustment to accommodate the annexation of large numbers of settlers
has merit. I suspect that Israel would find it in its interest that
areas in the Galilee adjacent to the border and populated largely by
Israeli Arabs be included in the swap.
3) Refugees – Israel will undoubtedly reject the premise that it must
accept refugees equal to the average accepted by third-party
countries. At best Israel might agree to consider accepting a number
of refugees on the basis of family reunification, where the refugees
are relatives of Israeli Arabs.
4) Jerusalem – If Israel is to retain the Jewish Quarter of the Old
City then it will prefer the Quarter to be isolated from the Arab
Quarters and open to the Israeli sector outside the Old City, rather
than open to the remainder of the Old City and isolated from the
Israeli sector outside the Old City. This will also simplify security
and sovereignty issues.
5) Security – Israel will continue to object to any foreign military
presence in Palestine. Once Israel withdraws from the territories, an
international military force can only provide the Palestinians with
immunity from retaliation for attacks against Israel. Paradoxically,
from Israel's perspective, their presence would encourage attacks
against Israel rather than preventing them. I suspect that some of the
security concessions Beilin negotiated into the Accords, such as the
"Early Warning Stations", are superfluous and will be replaced by
airborne and satellite surveillance.
I doubt that even Labor will be able to conclude negotiations without
most of these modifications being included in the final agreement. If
accepted then the Palestinians will have achieved the following:
- End of the "occupation"
- Removal of all settlers and Israeli military forces from the
occupied territories
- Creation of a sovereign Palestinian State, free of the corrupting
influence of Zionist culture and society
- Initiation of the process of resettlement and compensation of the Refugees
- Eventual construction of an express highway and probably rail line
connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip
- Opening of international airport and construction of commercial seaport
Israel will have its separation, even reducing the percentage of Arabs
in its population. It will rely on the IDF to guarantee quiet from
across the wall isolating it from the alien Arab society beyond.
Politically and economically it should be significantly better off
than it is today.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, will be on their own to meet the
challenge of building the society and environment they aspire to.
Unfortunately, confidence in their ability to build a successful and
flourishing country is low. Experience has shown that the Palestinians
tend to blame their failures on others rather than expending the
effort required to succeed. I would wish them all possible success,
though I fear the Palestinian State will be plagued by violence,
hunger, poverty, overcrowding, and rampant political corruption; in
other words a continuation of the current situation in the Gaza Strip
since the "disengagement".
The second option is not currently a practical reality; however it
could become one with effort on the part of its proponents. The
realistic one-State option which could come about would differ
substantially from that described in the articles I've read promoting
a one-State solution. Their authors seem to think Israelis will raise
their hands and say "Zionism is dead; long live the secular State of
Palestine". I don't think so. The politics of democracy don't work
that way. The process of change in a democracy requires the
accumulation of political power and involves forming alliances and
finding common interests. This will not happen overnight and these
newly elected Arab parliamentary representatives will have to contend
with seasoned opponents.
A likely scenario would take the following form:
- Israel officially annexes the occupied territories.
- Institutions and functionaries of the PA are integrated into
parallel institutions of the Israeli government.
- The vast majority of Palestinians are registered as Israeli
citizens, equal in rights and responsibilities to the existing Israeli
Arab population.
- Following parliamentary elections the proportional representation of
Arabs in the Knesset increases substantially.
- Due to this increased parliamentary clout legislation is passed
accommodating the needs and desires of the Israeli Arab community,
without harming the interests of the Israeli Jewish community.
What would not occur, at least not within the first few decades
following annexation, is the formation of an Arab dominated
parliamentary coalition, which converts the Jewish State of Israel
into the "bi-national" State of Palestine. Be assured that initially
the Arab representation in the Knesset will be in the minority, and
the Jewish majority will do all in its power to maintain their
majority. To do this you can be certain that they will not allow the
law-of-return for Jews to be repealed or for a similar law to be
enacted for Arabs. If anything they will attempt to enact immigration
laws which maintain a balance between Arab and Jewish immigration, in
order to sustain the Jewish parliamentary majority in the Jewish
State.
This may seem racist however I have yet to find an example where the
politicians in a democracy commit political suicide by assisting a
minority to overpower them politically. Short of achieving the power
to dominate the Jewish population however, the Arab community will
have sufficient political power to achieve social and economic parity
with the Jews, making them the most prosperous Arabic community in the
region.
In time the interaction between the two communities will have evolved
into a relationship of mutual benefit and respect; where equal
opportunities and prosperity will be combined with the ability to live
according to the culture and lifestyle each individual desires.
These are the two options on the table as far as I can see, and one of
the two will likely become a reality within the next few years. I can
guarantee a tremendous number of Rightist Zionists who would prefer
the one-State option over relinquishing their homes and communities in
Judea and Samaria; as well as Orthodox Jews who consider Judea and
Samaria the heartland of biblical Israel, and cynics who expect
Katyusha rockets to rain upon Israel as soon as Palestine becomes a
State. Perhaps there are those from the Peace movements who also
believe that unification is morally superior to separation.
The key question however is, given a true understanding of their
choices, are there any Palestinian Arabs who would prefer the
one-State option? Only they can cause it to come about – either
through substantial grass-roots support, or by allowing negotiations
over the Geneva Accords to fail, thereby causing the Israeli Right to
seize power and annex the territories unilaterally.
I've read over and over how Israeli Arabs are second class citizens.
This has always seemed strange to me for several reasons. Firstly,
every time I hear of a legal case where Arab Israelis sue for equal
treatment the courts find in their favor. Secondly, far from the
pitiful image second class status evokes, most Israeli Arab
neighborhoods and villages I've seen have been filled with large,
lavishly decorated homes. And lastly, I have been led to believe
Israeli Arabs treasure their citizenship and would object strenuously
to its revocation. If this is true perhaps it would be wise to ask
them what they find so agreeable about being second class Israeli
citizens. In fact it would be likely that Israeli Arabs faced with
possible revocation of their Israeli citizenship as part of the Geneva
deal would also support the one-State option (the Geneva Accords in
its original form includes the revocation of the Israeli citizenship
of Arabs living in East Jerusalem).
Personally, I've always been a proponent of co-existence. In my view
the "leftists" who criticize settlers as undemocratic, are the ones
who cannot abide the idea of living alongside Arabs. I harbor no
hatred towards anyone. I do have difficulty showing tolerance toward
those who have no tolerance towards me, whether these individuals are
those Arabs who want to shoot me, blow me up or merely chase me away;
or Jews who have difficulty with the fact that I am religious or that
I see nothing wrong with a Jew living in an area which, 38 years ago,
was occupied by Jordan for 19 years. Yet if the decision is made that
I will have to abandon the home I spent the last 15 years building
with my own hands, and the community I have become an integral member
of, then I will adapt, with no regrets, to my new home. It's up to you
now. Choose well, for both our sakes.
C. Handler
Samaria
handlevy [at] gmail.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Appearing before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and later at a public rally in Haifa, Sharon on Tuesday maintained that those lands, of which Israel gained control in the 1967 Six-Day War, were not "occupied" but "disputed."
...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/28/100340.shtml
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Sunday, Jun 15, 2003,Page 9
What's in a word? The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, learned that in the Middle East, a word can explode like a bomb.
"The thinking and the ideas that it is possible to continue holding [people] under occupation -- one may not like the word," he said on May 26, showing that he was aware of the furor his use of it would create, "but what is happening here, is occupation. To hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation in my mind is bad for Israel, also for the Palestinians, also for Israel's economy."
Coming from Sharon, builder and defender of settlements for more than a generation, the word stunned his longtime fellow hard-liners. The burly former general had for years pointedly referred to land claimed by Palestinian Arabs as "Judea and Samaria," in the hope that the reminder of the biblical heritage of the ancient Jews would lend historical authority to Israel's right to the land west of the west bank of the Jordan River.
Sharon refused to call those 1.45 million acres (586,794 hectares, slightly smaller than the US state of Delaware) "the West Bank," as most of the Western media did, because it seemed to suggest that the land was not part of the state of Israel. He was among the many hard-liners who resented what they considered an even more pro-Palestinian usage, "the occupied West Bank."
Although the kingdom of Jordan claimed that territory from 1948 to 1967, its claim was not recognized by most of the world's nations; after Israel defeated an Arab attempt to destroy the Israeli state in 1967, Israel moved into the land to ensure what it called "defensible borders."
In light of UN resolutions calling for a withdrawal from "territories" -- but specifically not all territories -- seized in Israel's defensive war, Israelis tried out the phrase administered territories. Those sympathetic to the cause of an independent Palestinian state preferred "occupied West Bank," which imputed impermanence to the arrangement.
As the usage war tilted toward the Palestinians, Israelis recalled that the legal status of Judea/Samaria or the West Bank had, since the Yom Kippur war, been "areas in dispute." A neutral term was floated out to provide "occupied" with competition: "disputed territories."
"There is a world of difference," wrote the Sharon adviser Dore Gold last year, "between a situation in which Israel approaches the international community as a `foreign occupier' with no territorial right and one in which Israel has a strong historical right to the land."
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld endeared himself to embattled Israelis by showing his understanding of the nuances as he referred to "the so-called occupied territories."
Then Sharon deliberately used the word "occupation" repeatedly. Israel's nonpartisan attorney general, Elyakim Rubinstein, promptly rebuked the prime minister, reminding him that the proper legal term was "disputed territories."
Sharon accepted that, asserting: "We are not occupiers. In the diplomatic dictionary these are disputed lands." He told supporters in Haifa that he was referring to the inhabitants, not to the territory: "We don't want to rule 3.5 million Palestinians. That's what I meant when I used the word occupation."
But the cat -- in this case, the word "occupied" -- was out of the bag. The Hebrew word Sharon used was kibush, often translated as "conquest." The root of "occupied" is the Latin occupare, "to seize by force," as the US and its allies did in Iraq, where it is now officially "the occupying force," acting as sovereign and responsible for order. Neither is a word that most Israelis want to use in negotiation, which is why hard-liners were stunned and Palestinians were pleased.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2003/06/15/2003055348
UN Secratery General Koffi Anan once asked, "can the entre world be wrong?!". You bet it can!
I believe that referring to Myths and facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard as a primary source for understanding the current crisis in the Middle-East is not very academic. I think that people should refer to less biased sources, especially when they want to gain knowledge of such sensitive issues as the occupied territories which Israel alone refers to as "disputed territories." According to the entire world community, even the United States, these territories are occupied, not "disputed." The United Nations, the International Court of Justice and even the CIA use the term "occupied territories" as opposed to "disputed territories." The CIA World Factbook bluntly says: "West Bank and Gaza Strip are Israeli-occupied."
Also included in the occupied territories are the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem which were captured in the 1967 war along with Gaza and the West Bank. The world community clearly agrees with this definition. As a matter of fact, when the Israeli Knesset passed the Jerusalem law in 1980, declaring all of Jerusalem (including the eastern part) as the "eternal and indivisible" capital of Israel, the United Nations Security Council declared it a violation of international law and unanimously adopted resolution 478. The vote was passed 14-0 and remaining embassies were transferred to Tel-Aviv.
According to Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, even "Prime Minister Sharon has admitted that in fact these territories are 'occupied' though he later rejected the legal implications of his remark." I also noticed that Allen Markuze put quotations around the word Palestinian. This might come as a surprise to Markuze, but the Palestinian people do exist. I myself am Palestinian and I am writing this letter at the moment, and this is enough to prove it. Palestinians have a long history and culture that goes back to the Canaanites who were actually conquered by the Israelites around 1000 BCE How does the minority of people that refuse to comprehend that Palestinians exist expect to ever achieve peace with them?
http://thelink.concordia.ca/letters/05/04/11/2027232.shtml
1. How many Palestinians can be traced back through hard-nosed bio-genetic and anthropological scientific studies to the Phoenicians (sea-faring Canaanites) that lived in Lebanon until assimilating into surrounding ethnicities during the first centuries BC?
2. It's a fact that no Canaanites remained in historical Israel (Palestine) beyond the 9 century BC.
When Germany took Alsace-Lorraine from France in the late 1800s was that an issue of disputed or occupied territory? Since the population changed citizenship it is much easier to see that as a question of disputed territory than occupied territory. Arguing against the word occupation because it sounds bad is trying to hide from the facts When the US had troops in Japan after WWII that was an occupation, when Soviets moved into Afghanistan that was an occupation, when Britain took over Egypt and made it a colony that was an occupation, what is happening now in Iraq is an occupation, Gaza was occupied and the West Bank is still occupied. One could argue over words such as occupation vs disputed in cases like Tibet, Chechnya, and other areas taken over by another country where citizenship was given to those taken over but there is really no question of the use of the word occupied when one looks at the West Bank. Playing word games seem strange in this case since you can find many more poeple who see the US occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII as being a positive thing while one finds fewer people who support the tajkeover of disputed territories like Tibet.
I dont think arguments about 1000 year old history should have anything to do with today. Do second generation immigrants have less of a right to live in the US than people whose ancestors lived here for 200 years. The only people I have seen today who make use of 500+ year old history to justify ethnic cleansing are the Israelis and the Serbs (who used the "illegal" Turkish occupation hundreds of years ago to justirfy cleansing Bosnia of Muslims)
That said, most genetic studies have shown than Palestinains for the most part were in the area before the Arabs moved in with Islam (and as with the Bosnians and Albanians the change was one of religion not one of one population replacing another). Comparisons of Palestinian DNA with those of other groups shows a closer genetic connection between most Palestinians and most European Jews than between most Palestinians and most Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#The_ancestry_of_the_Palestinians ). Of course the closest connection genetically is between Palestinian Muslims,Palestinian Christians and Jews who never left the region. Of course some of the studies that concluded this were later disputed and there was a huge uproar ove the entire thing. Its interesting historically, buit the strange part is why anyone would really care politically. If Palestinians were 60% 5th generation immigrants would that give them any less right to keep living in the same place as their great-great-greater grandparents? Should ones genetics really determine where one should be allowed to live?
Yeah, the questions shouldn't be directed not only at rightwing Israelis brandishing historical arguments but also at Palestinians, notably the jingoistic and religious segments among them who constitute the majoiry btw - who try to undermine the Jewish Israeli claims through revisionist history and junk science.
I don't dispute that most Palestinians don't go back in history to the Arabs. Only some of them are actually descended from any Arabs who emerged from the Arabian peninsula in the 7 century BC. But I must take issue with certain bizarre assertions contained in your arguments:
1. "The only people I have seen who make use of 500+ year old history to justify ethnic cleansing are the Israelis..."
Given the facts, you're clearly utilizing propaganda rather than serious reporting for your contention as evidenced by the ridiculous generalization about "the Israelis". As to the charge of ethnic cleansing per se, it too is ridiculous and flies in the face of any serious analysis, both in current and decades' long perspectives.
2. "That said, most genetic studies have show than Palestinains for the most part were in the area before the Arabs moved in with Islam (and as with the Bosnians and Albanians the change was one of religion not one of one population replacing another). Comparisons of Palestinian DNA with those of other groups shows a closer genetic connection between most Palestinians and most European Jews than between most Palestinians and most Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian#The_ancestry_of_the_Palestinians ). Of course the closest connection genetically is between Palestinian Muslims,Palestinian Christians and Jews who never left the region. Of course some of the studies that concluded this were later disputed and there was a huge uproar ove the entire thing. Its interesting historically"
First off, even Wikipedia concedes the neutrality of the page's content is higly disputed.
Secondly, scientific truth isn't determined by some sort of majority vote as though it's arrived at the way a soccer team wins a game by scoring the most goals.If even ONE study's conclusions can be successfully refuted, the thesis or hypothesis allegedly proven must be abandoned by truth seekers.
Thirdly, you used a vague criterion of being "in the area" whereas I wonder how many Palestinians can be traced back to Phoenicians, those Canaanites who once populated the coastal areas of Lebanon and to some extent Syria. THAT is the question when an honest observer tries to figure out een approximate figures. That holds for Canaanites _outside of_ historical Israel, not to be confused with the others to the south-east _inside_ Israel
Fourthly, most Canaanites _inside_ Israel had assimilated into the Israelites who later split into two seperate people, the Jews and Samaritans. There were several forced conversions (and the rare voluntary ones) to Islam of Jews but mainly of Samaritans during the centuries. These account for most of the "closer genetic connection between most Palestinians and most European Jews than between most Palestinians and most Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula", yet this "closer genetic connection" does NOT prove that most Palestinians or even a significant minority of them descend from Canaanites. Anyone claiming otherwise needs a logic lesson.
The claim of Canaanite heritage for the Palestinian people is a myth derived from PLO propaganda that has been relentlesly trumpeted by petrol-dollars but has scant historical or scientific truth in it if at all.
I would have issues with someone trying to use such a claim for political reasons since it should have nothing to do with people today. People are not responsible for the actions of their parents let alone ancestors from 100 generations ago. The meaninglessness of any argument involving 1000s of years of ancestry isnt just that its amost definitionally racist, it also ignores mixing of populations (after 20 generations alone one has over a million ancestors so even ina relatively closed group its hard to say one current group is the real heirs to the ancestry of a group thousands of years ago).
As for legal definitions of Occupation, Israel's stated justification for taking over the West Bank and Gaza seem strikingly similar to the arguments used by the US after WWII to occupy Japan and Germany. Most Israelis see things this way if you listen to the arguments about why the Occupation exists and how things should end (ie there is almost universal support for a two state solution with the justfication for the occupation still being one of "we were atacked"). Trying to define the Occupation (or even Palestinians") out of existance through slight of hand and word trickery probably hurts your cause mor than helping it seens its so transparently underhanded and suggests more sinister motives than really exist (like deporting all nonJews in the West Bank to Jordan). The recent tendency by Israel supporters to reject the use of the term West Bank is similar in that the argument isnt really definitional but one of why someone would be politically motivated to change the terms of the debate in this way (again suggesting that ethnic cleansing is a real danger when polls in Israel strongly suggest otherwise).
One more point on that. When you see that thing at the top of a Wikipedia page its good to go to the discussion page to see why (the stuff I linked to on the page isn't why the page is frozen).
Of course while its not discussed much on the Wikipedia discussion, the genetic findings seem like they are in dispute, but less so than other parts of the paper that contained them (see http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.11.30/news7.html ). There haven't been other studies that have refuted that Palestinians and European Jews are very closely related but I wouldnt be surprised if no such study is performed for a long time since one is bound to come under attacks (by either side) no matter what one finds. It really is worth repeating that it is very troubling that people care about such genetic studies since it implies some sort of idea of genetic rights to land and guilt based off the actions of ones ancestors. The idea that both sides in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could in fact be close relatives does seem poetic and something that could be used to help bring about peace but it also conteins a bit of racism in the assumption that people who are related should get along better and peopel who are not related should have a harder time getting along. Of course when both sides are using irrational arguments about thousand year old land conflicts to justify current political views the idea that both sides are really talking about the same people 200 years ago does seem like something that could at least get people to focus more on the present.
Some of the claims you're now making cannot be confined to the opinions of rightwing Israeli Jews but should be applied also to the Palestnian side of the divide.
Note that making an argument involving millenia of ancestry needn't necessarily be racist or darn close as you claim. This goes for both parties.
I wonder though why you only entered the fray to say these things once I stepped in to counter the revisionist historical claim above but were silent about your conviction when the triggering mythological Palestinian contention was made. The timing you picked to make your misgiving known is telling.
Anyway, the article seemed to me more than fair, with even one pro-Palestinian overtone (the use of the phrase Occupied Territories, which demonstrates just how this phrase has managed to occupy the minds of even a few among the Israelis living there) or two, given that it was penned by a rightwing Israeli residing in Samaria, namely the 2/3 of the so-called West Bank north of Jerusalem.
Perhaps you're right as to how most Israeli Jews view the administration of the dfisputed territories. Most Israelis do seem to emphasize the security considerations in holding on to them to the exclusion of religio-national-historical reasons. But that's very likely a result of the decades long avoidance of the secular Israeli educational system (for obvious political reasons, namely the lack of resolve by both Labor and Likud govts) to make the young believe these land masses are not only spoils of war from 1967 but also Israeli territory in national, religious, and historical senses. Not to mention that their Jews were ethnically cleansed since the late 1920's up to 1948. The territories were considered even by the leftwing Mapam Zionists every bit Jewish patrimony in every way save for the religious in the Mapam case
If there's slights of hand at work, I see they're coming in fora like this one overwhelmingly from the Palestinian side of the divide. I'm not engaging in "trickology" here. You may be dismayed that I'm sticking to facts that aren't to your liking though. But at the same time you have little problem clamming up when some Palestinian or their supporters make patently absurd claims that can be easily debunked by a short research that most laypeople can perform.
Meantime, the only deportation that's even occurring - hell, it has occurred in part - is whereby Jews are being removed from some of the disputed area. This seems to pose no moral problem for you and your countless friends in political persuasion, and yet you're hyper-sensitive about the prospect of any Palestinians being transferred from their present living locations. A few postings suggest that a tiny anti-Zionist minority seems to look at such uprootings of Jews as a genuine problem, but you don't seem to be of that opinion.
Your indignation over what you wrongly view as a recent trend among Zionists to reject what has always basically been ill-founded nomenclature further betrays a misguided sensitivity aided by what's hard not to define as seemiong paranoia as sugested by your digging up imaginary fears which are at best pie in the sky in light of both the Israeli Jewish consenses concerning the disputed territories and the Governments' majority views since the late 1960's.
The seemingly slightly pro-Palestinian Israeli author himself (who implies he's not a left winger) termed his residence as being "Samaria", not something like "the northern West Bank". Coming from such a person, this fact should put the lie to your unjustified fears of the use of historically Jewish geographical terms by Israel supporters. Think about it long and hard.
Many Jews were forced to leave places liike Iraq, Egypt and even what is now the West Bank for racist reasons (mostly because of popular racism though not government policy, not that this matters).
Whats different about the destruction of settlements today and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from such an area is that the settlers dont claim to be Palestinian and most moved to the land to stake claim to it for Israel rather than themselves. Opposition to settlements comes because of what they represent (military control over access roads, road blocks that destroy the Palestinian economy...) not because of a desire to not have Jews in the West Bank. If you talk to almost any Israeli (who see themselves as a citizen of a country not as mere symbols) they support the removal of settlements for exactly this reason and dont pay any attention to talk of removal of settlements as antiSemitic. The Gaza withdrawl had such widespread support in Israel not because of any desire to make Gaza free of Jews or because peopel thought it could be traded for land in the West Bank, Israelis supported the removal of settlements since the setlers were demanding so much of Israel (rather than just demanding to be able to live as equals among Palestinians)
If crazy Christians, Muslims or Jews want to go visit or live on land thats in some made up religious texts I think that should be their right. But their right to immigrate and visit shouldnt involve the oppression of those living in the area.Just as there is a sizable population of Arab Israelis it would be nice to think of a future where there is a sizable number of Jewish Palestinians.
Talking about how the "occupaied territories" are actually "disputed territories" is a word game since it has no impact on underlying meaning and is a rather strange use of the term "disputed territories". You are not claiming that all Palestinians in the West Bank should be declared Israeli citizens are you?
I'm actual serious about that question. I really dont understand how anyone who supports Israel can support settlements that are in the middle of the West Bank (unless as I would guess some do, they are just seen as something that can be traded during the negotiatons to reach a 2 state solution). I can understand how some Israelis may hope that when final agreements are reachd Israel may end up with most of Jerusalem or everything on the Israeli side of the wall being built, but when it comes to settlements that are in the center of the West Bank the logic is very confusing. It sounds like you are claiming all of the West Bank is in dispute and if you really are arguing that I would like to know what you see as the claim from your side. If you really are claiming that all of the West Bank should be part of Israel than what are you proposing happen to the millions of Palestinians living on the land? Do you want to expell them? Do you want to make them Israeli citizens?
If you are only claiming that part of the West Bank is disputed than would you be happy with the parts that are not in dispute (ie all the land on the other side of the wall being built from Israel) as being occupied? If not and you dont see such land as being in dispute what would you call that land since disputed territories would clealy be an incorrect term even under your own logic.
It has the added benefit of a proven track record, as opposed to say the integration-under-force paradigm of the former Yugoslavia.
It is thus a fantasy.
There are dozens of muslim countries, and just one jewish country. To suggest that the world's only jewish country should "undo" its own existence and let millions of muslims flood in and form an islamic majority is friggin insane and moronic. No rational person would suggest such a thing.
Go destroy your own country, or your own family, or something.
"Realistically speaking...
by ...is "one state" a solution? Sunday, Oct. 16, 2005 at 6:38 PM
I suspect a Turkey-Greece style population exchange is the only realistic path to long term peace between these bitter neighbors.
It has the added benefit of a proven track record, as opposed to say the integration-under-force paradigm of the former Yugoslavia. "
end quote
What do you think led to Black September? Arafat's quest to reclaim Palestine from the Hashemites...but poor Yasser, his "army" was full of "palestinians" and the Hashemites massacred 20,000 in a few weeks.
What is it about the web that attacks such crazy people and makes everything seem so polarized? Any real debates between Palestinians and Israelis would be much more civil but there are crazies all over the world who seem to have their own agenda and revel in the destruction of extemism, bet it Islamic extremism or Jewish fundamentalist extremism.
LOL...There aren't any Jews left in the Gaza...and once the "palestinians" control Paliland, there won't be any Jews there either...therein lies the problem. 20% of Israel's population is Arab.. The Jewish population in Arab nations is 0% (Ethnic cleansing) "arab" east Jerusalem became "arab" as a result of ethnic cleansing by the trans-jordanians. The arabs remaining were considered to be Jordanians not "palestinians"...most in the west bank still hold Jordanian passports.
Yasser failed to get a popular uprising going in Jordan. A Massacre resulted. It seems that the Hashemites kill the terrorist, and all males in his familywhen they catch up with them. Kinda puts the brakes on things.
this is like a freeform poetics of pure paranoia, utterly unsupported by fact.
come down off the space shuttle JD!!
how heartwarmingly Orwellian.
Or a Moslem state...any one of the 57 on the planet will do...
why not the Jewish state?
eh?
The three Israelis killed in a Palestinian drive-by shooting Sunday are Matat Adler, 21, from Carmel, her cousin Kinneret Mandel, 23, from the same Mt. Hebron village, and Oz Ben-Meir, 15, from nearby Maon. Five were injured, two seriously
October 16, 2005, 4:47 PM (GMT+02:00)
Israeli roadblocks have been restored to West Bank roads and Palestinian private cars banned after two deadly Palestinian Fatah-al Aqsa Brigades drive-by shootings.
They were hit when a car full of armed Palestinians sprayed the Gush Etzion intersection hitch-hiking post. Forty minutes later, gunmen in a second car opened fire on an Israeli car at Eily east of Ariel. The driver was seriously hurt. One attack was the work of the Masoud Ayad team, the second, of the Yasser Arafat team from Nablus. Hamas-Hebron provided the cars and the weapons. Later Sunday night, Jihad Islami leader Khaled al Betash threatened a third terrorist attack in revenge for the liquidation of a senior operative Nirad Khanem near Jenin by an undercover border police unit.
The West Bank roadblocks restored now were dismantled three months ago as Israeli confidence-building concessions to Mahmoud Abbas. The IDF is also considering restoring the military blockade of Bethlehem, source of the Gush Etzion killer squad.
DEBKAfile adds: As soon as he heard of the attacks, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon ordered the withdrawal of all the concessions extended to bolster Abu Mazen’s grip on government as too costly in Israeli lives. Abu Mazen heard the news in Jordanian king Abdullah’s palace in Amman, where they were discussing how to persuade Israel to accept the entry of Jordanian forces to the West Bank. Abbas uttered no word of condemnation. Ahead of his White House talks on October 20, the Palestinian leader is cultivating the weak man posture to back up his appeal for urgent help to save him from collapse. When he is asked what kind of help, his reply his ready: Make Israel release the popular Fatah terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti, sentenced to life by an Israeli court for multiple murder, to run alongside Abbas in the January elections and assure the Fatah of victory. Abbas has thus reversed his strategy: instead of striving to show the Americans he is capable of subduing Palestinian terror, he is embracing the threat of violence to squeeze further concessions from Israel.
seriously-- the Jews did the "no state" solution and paid dearly for it.
hows about you get those other "anarchists" to stop toting around the Palestinian flag at demos-- you know it happens, you've seen it.
make no state really mean no state, and not just some antisemitic code word.
What's amazing are the people who make this claim and somehow think they're doing the right thing.
Jewish country? Destroy it! Dozens of Muslim countries? Leave them alone and create a new one!
It's antisemitism, folks.
Just like your anti-Muslim bigotry will be.
Yes, since inside Israel Proper the Majority Population is Jewish, and they want a Jewish State....Let it be a Jewish State.
But since in the West Bank and Gaza the Majority Population is Muslim...in the interest of Peace, let them have their own State.
VIABLE PALESTINIAN STATE IN THE WHOLE OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA BY 2005, CALLED FOR IN THE ROAD MAP TO PEACE....2005 will soon be over....
What we should have learned by the Gaza Pull Out.
That People whether Israelis or Palestinians do not like losing their land and homes.
So before we really have a huge problem in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Because until there is the Palestinian State, there is still reason for the resistance.
Let us go ahead and make that Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza.
That we do not have that State with its official Borders is the Problem Now.
Everyone is quite aware that there are some 1,200,000 or so Arabs living inside Israel Proper. Almost every single nation on earth is made up of more then one ethnic group.
So instead of forcing people to move, just fix the borders.
The 400,000 or so Jewish settlers will then be living in Palestine.
Let there be a five to ten year period on which they can decide on their own whether or not they like living in Palestine or if they want to move to the Official State of Israel.
Once they choose on their own, Israel can then help them financially to move.
Lets not have the forced move like in Gaza…….
The most important thing we can do for Peace Now and not in the distant future is to make the Palestinian State NOW! That will end the reason for the conflict.
Israel with some 5,000,000 or so Jews and 1,200,000 Arabs.
Palestine with some 4,000,000 or so Palestinians and some 400,000 Jews.
There is conflict because the Palestinians are being Oppressed not because a Jew lives down the Road.
I might not be saying this if there were not already Arabs living with Jews in Israel Proper.
The other Current Problem is the Wall inside the West Bank instead of on the Pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
If the Wall was on the Green Line. The Jews who do not like living East of the line can choose on their own to move West of the Line.
I don't even discuss Muslims, in general or in particular or at all, except to point out that if it's OK for muslim countries to be muslim countries, it's OK for the world's only jewish country to continue to be a jewish country.
But "peace activist" movements have been infused by lunatics who have decided that being antisemitic and singling israel out not just for somewhat valid criticism but for elimination/"undoing" is the in thing to do.
No one would be "singling Israel out for elimination" if Israel had not first subjected Palestinians to a quarter-century of relentless attrition in order to steal their land. This crossed an unforgiveable line 23 years ago (Sabra & Shatila), and it hasn't let up yet. It's the most blatant colonial/racist state crime going on in the world at present, with the possible exception of the Poland blitzkrieg-- uh "Iraq invasion." Of course zionist fanatics are loving that one too and helped make it happen. Anything that kills Arabs... If Hitler were reincarnated today as an Arab-hater, cookie-duster mustache and all, the zionists would suddenly be telling us "hey ya know, ol' Adolph, he isn't so bad after all!!"
You get the zionists to cease with their stealing land and desist from their murderous hatred, and maybe I'll start listening to your sanctimonious protestations. By the way, are you a zionist? Yeah, I know, "define zionist," uh-huh. I've played this dance-around game before.
Look, just fucking emigrate to Israel already, PLEASE. The IDF could always use another hate-rictus-visaged trigger-happy maniac
Many Jews were forced to leave places like Iraq, Egypt and even what is now the West Bank for racist reasons (mostly because of popular racism though not government policy, not that this matters).
You: "Whats different about the destruction of settlements today and the ethnic cleansing of Jews from such an area is that the settlers dont claim to be Palestinian and most moved to the land to stake claim to it for Israel rather than themselves."
Actually, that's inaccurate as many of the settlers, primarily the secular, did move in to the disputed territories to attain cheaper housing - a selfish motivation.
There has been a eensy teensy minority of settlers referring to themselves as Jewish Palestinians and accusing even the Arab Palestinian national movement of coopting the name.
Also, your argument implies that the Jewish settlers should have found a way to be accepted by the Arab Palestinians. The two immediately obvious glaring problems with such an argument are: for one, most Palestinians in those territories are themselves settlers, i.e. their parents, grandparents and so-forth only a few generations back were newbies to these areas, migrants in search of better employment and living opportunities. The implication that the majority of Palestinians actually owned any swath of land there doesn't hold water, deranged ranters branding Zionists as Nazis in drag and a slew of other antisemitic crap notwithstanding. For another, you're either unaware or ignore the constant efforts that most Jewish settlers have expended to at least get along with their Palestinian neighbors. You won't hear about these inconvenient facts on Indymedia or in the mainstream media.
You: "Opposition to settlements comes because of what they represent (military control over access roads, road blocks that destroy the Palestinian economy...) not because of a desire to not have Jews in the West Bank."
That's patently false, sir! You're either woefully uninformed or just kidding yourself on this one. Provided you're being honest, you must be ignorant of the copious antisemitism that the Palestinian and Arab opposition to the settlements flows from. Even outside the Arab world Much of the opposition to Jewish villages and towns there has had a lot to do with a desire to effect a Judenrein.
You: "If you talk to almost any Israeli (who see themselves as a citizen of a country not as mere symbols) they support the removal of settlements for exactly this reason and dont pay any attention to talk of removal of settlements as antiSemitic."
Again, you're making inaccurate observations. A small majority or half of the Israeli Jewish population opposed the deportation from and destruction of the Gazan Jewish settlements. Does the color Orange trigger a buried memory of that widespread movement?
You: "The Gaza withdrawl had such widespread support in Israel,... Israelis supported the removal of settlements since the setlers were demanding so much of Israel (rather than just demanding to be able to live as equals among Palestinians)"
Well, truth be told, so many Israelis have long considered the settlers a pain in the neck or a burden on the state as many of them haven't only been ungrateful for all the military protection they've received round the clock, but also abused their guards in a myriad of ways. These behaviors have caused a groundswell of acrimony toward the settlers in Israel proper which eventually translated into even a slight gloating at the Gazan Jews' misfortune by many Israelis.
You've been fingering the wrong culprits (so to speak), for the massive Israeli support of the Gazan uprootings. No rightwingers in Israel have considered the problem one of the settlers "demanding so much of Israel" (and don't forget the Left doesn't command a majority there nowadays.
Moreover, I already told you above that many settlers have been willing to live among Palestinians, and without lording over them. It was the Palestinian side that is at least equally to blame for the decades long failure of the two parties to live in neighborly co-existence.
You: "If crazy Christians, Muslims or Jews want to go visit or live on land thats in some made up religious texts I think that should be their right. But their right to immigrate and visit shouldnt involve the oppression of those living in the area."
I agree, though I'd like to see anti-Zionists directing this wish at Palestinians as well.
You: "Just as there is a sizable population of Arab Israelis it would be nice to think of a future where there is a sizable number of Jewish Palestinians."
It'd be nice if the Palestinian majority in the disputed territories were able to switch to the mindset that allows for the imperfect Israeli democracy that allows for the sizable Arab minority within Israel proper to live there on much better terms than the Palestinian side is currently willing to grant Jews in Judea and Samaria. I'm not holding my breath though.
Me: "You may be dismayed that I'm sticking to facts that aren't to your liking though"
You: "Talking about how the "occupaied territories" are actually "disputed territories" is a word game since it has no impact on underlying meaning and is a rather strange use of the term "disputed territories".
Rather strange use - in your (plural) subjective vantage point. Actually, you're rebelling against the legal meaning of the term in int'l law (as well as UN Resolutions originating from this legal reality) and seem reluctant to accept the historical facts that underly the significance of the term "disputed" in this context.
The word game, if one even exists, is played by those who insist terms like "disputed territories" must always be rejected in favor of others that never imply that the political and historical background and variables are more numerous and complex than meets the eye of your average anti-Zionist.
You: "I'm actual serious about that question. I really dont understand how anyone who supports Israel can support settlements that are in the middle of the West Bank (unless as I would guess some do, they are just seen as something that can be traded during the negotiatons to reach a 2 state solution)."
If there's any such problem of sequestered Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, I'd chalk it up to either insufficient planning on the part of earlier Likud gov'ts or a lack of resolve on their part to beef up such isolated settlement points with additional settlements. I for one do not support those settlements erected on various hilltops by lunatic fringes like the Hilltop Youth. However, when Palestinians encroach on the territory of Jewish settlements that were legally bought and built, the settlers are entitled to try to drive the encroachers away if there are clear and present dangers to life and property or if the army or border police fail that.
You: "I can understand how some Israelis may hope that when final agreements are reachd Israel may end up with most of Jerusalem or everything on the Israeli side of the wall being built, but when it comes to settlements that are in the center of the West Bank the logic is very confusing."
You're some piece of work, you know? You keep on harping about my use of the term disputed territories but you then suddenly resort to the frivolous anti-Zionist term "the wall" to designate Israel's security barrier that's made of only roughly 6% fence. Talk about word games! By using that propaganda term, you've effectively forfeited the right to complain about "wordgames" coming from Israel supporters.
You: " It sounds like you are claiming all of the West Bank is in dispute and if you really are arguing that I would like to know what you see as the claim from your side."
Some small portions of the territory is actually owned by Palestinians; the unpopulated areas which still remain throughout the so-called West bank are legally up for grabs; Jews are at least as entitled to settle there. Overall, in the grand scheme of things that takes back seat to the fact that Judea and Samaria as a whole is geopoliticallly in dispute. Same as Kashmir.
You: "If you really are claiming that all of the West Bank should be part of Israel than what are you proposing happen to the millions of Palestinians living on the land? Do you want to expell them? Do you want to make them Israeli citizens?"
In an ideal scenario it should have been annexed to Israel proper but that would be foolhardy to do under present circumstances. Meanwhile, the Palestinians don't have a superior entitlement to the territory as a whole, much less to uninhabited and Jewish settled areas therein.
I suggest you mull over how you didn't shy from getting worked up over nomenclature when you yourself resort to misguided labels like "the wall". How about keeping your own house clean while you complain?
When people discuss genetics of the Middle East, it is often forgotten that there were other Western Semitic peoples (rather than Southern Semites like Arabs), closely related to the Hebrews, such as the Assyrians, Arameans, and Bablyonians. Its far more likely that the Palestinians’ genetics can be traced back to those conquering nations than to the Canaanites. If you hear hoof beats, think “horse” not “zebras’.
Legally, Judea and Samarai, (renamed the “West Bank”by Jordan in 1948 after Jordan illegally occupied these areas) remain legally defined as “disputed territories”. At the same time, the Jordanians conquered East Jerusalem, forcibly expelling all the Jews and desecrating 57 synagogues. It was at that point that East Jerusalem became “historically arab" (another mythic propaganda term) The Arabs of the West Bank often still hold Jordanian passports. Jordan and the rest of the Arab league rejected the return of land for peace in ‘67 in the famous “three no’s of Khartoum”, “No Peace, No recognition, and no negotiation”. It was only in the ‘80s, that Jordan relinquished all claims to the West Bank.
People often forget that Jordan was carved out of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1923 by the British and is factually an Arab Palestinian State. “Black September”, was Arafat's attempt to mount a coup detat and to take the Kingdom of Jordan from the Hashemites royal family. The Jordanian army killed more PLO fighters than Israel ever has, altogether, not less than 20,000 in a few weeks.
There aren't any Jews left in the Gaza because the Palestinians insist that their territory be free of all Jews, as do the Jordanians. Further, it would not be safe to be a Jew under Palestinian government. And there is the real truth and the real fallacy in the “One State solution.” The truth is that the “one state “ solution really means that Israel should dismantle all of its security apparatus so that the Arabs have greater access to defenseless Jews. It would be a Ruanda situation within weeks.
Having read Norman Finkelstein’s work, he’s not an authority on anything at all. He seems to be an academic poseur who hopes to further his career by attacking bigger names than his own. He’s a an un-reconstructed Old Leftist who mourns the disintegration of the USSR. He’s also a toady to Noam Chomsky. He’s to be disregarded.
Israel was singled out for elimination decades before the phrase “Palestinian” had ever been applied to Arabs. It has nothing to do with the “occupation”. People also forget that Lebanon is and was in a declared state of war with Israel, and that the killings of Moslem Arabs by Christian Arabs at Sabra & Shatila were in retaliation for the killings of Christian Arabs by Moslem Arabs, including the assassination of the leader of the Christians Arabs. Ariel Sharon won a libel suit, after evidence was presented and a verdict rendered, against Time magazine for asserting that he was responsible.
It is purest racism, ringing of the Protocols, to assert that, “Zionist fanatics are loving that (the Iraq war) one too and helped make it happen”, as are your strange assertions about Hitler.
Since your factual assertions are all “through the looking glass”, maybe its time to get off the Internet and read some real books.
2. The Philistines were finished off by the Babylonians circa 600 BC.
3. The Assyrians and Babylonians, living as they did in Mesopotamia, were Eastern Semitic and so were their languages (apparently two very related dialicts originating in Accadian).
In the final analysis though, it doesn't matter how many Palestinians have a lineage going all the way back to Canaanites, because the persons that converted to took up Arab culture and/or converted to Islam had been Samaritans or Jews or others for at least centuries on end.
Let's try again. Fill in the blank:
The idea that land, water, and political power should be distributed according to bloodline, is *not* racist by definition because _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I'd guess he is not replying because you are asking a "When did you stop beating your wife?" type question
Objection- assumes facts not in evidence.
In challange to that assumption:
In the early part of the century, the Jewish National Fund was established by the World Zionist Congress to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. This land, and that acquired after Israel's War of Independence, was taken over by the government. Of the total area of Israel, 92 percent belongs to the State and is managed by the Land Management Authority. It is not for sale to anyone, Jew or Arab. The remaining 8 percent of the territory is privately owned. The Arab Waqf (the Muslim charitable endowment), for example, owns land that is for the express use and benefit of Muslim Arabs. Government land can be leased by anyone, regardless of race, religion or sex. All Arab citizens of Israel are eligible to lease government land.
Having the majority of the land owned by the state is not the same as disallowing land ownership by blood line. I'd guess the majority of the world handles land ownership in this manner. Even in America, with eminent domain, Land ownership is not a sacred right.
(1.) It does when the state is defined by the ethnicity of the people who run it. Israel is a Jewish state for the same reason, and in the same way, that the Third Reich was an Aryan state.
(2.) That's a straw man argument. As anyone with a scrollbar can readily tell, the question was not, "Is having the majority of the land owned by the state the same as disallowing land ownership by blood line?"
The blank is still blank. Why do the Zionists not fill in the blank?
Who knows? I guess, just as many people accuse the entire left of anti-Semitism because of one or two random people who post in anonymous online discussion boards there is a tendency to read too much into the views of the open racism in many of the antiPalestinian posts too.
"There's no need to use their ancestors' actions in this regard as a majority of them are doing that quite fine for decades now."
See, I'd actually call that statement racist since if you are referring to actions of Palestinians, the majority has never engaged in any sort of attack of any kind against any Israeli. It's the racism of blaming a whole group for the actions of a few members and many of all political stripes are guilty of it. Israealis are not all guilty for the actions of the Israeli government and Palestinians are notall guilty of the actions of a few militia groups (even if in both cases you may have a majority effectively supporting attacks on civilians).
" Insinuating those who want some of the settlements somewhat remote from the Green Line to remain are racists? "
To desire a settlement in the middle of the West Bank isnt racist on the surface but I wouldn't doubt that most who support such settlements are racist against Palestinians and probably all Arabs and Muslims. I wouldnt call all settlers racist, for example I wouldnt include 2nd generation settlers, the ultrareligious who really just want to live in some specific place for a religious reason or the small number of "settlements" in the West Bank that are continuation of pre1948 Jewish communities.
The problem with the settlements these days is mainly a pragmatic one. If one supports a one state solution I guess one would support settlements, but if there will eventually be two states there is no way Ariel (for example) can continue to exist and the longer it exists the harder it will be for there to ever be peace since at some point you have 2nd and 3rd generation settlers who feel attached to their land not because they want to make a political point but because its where they and their parents have lived.
Of course, there are many false arguments for settlemements that are thrown out to pull on people's emotions, but I have a feeling that only foreign supporters of Israel and almost no Israelis would buy into them.
For example, the argument that Jews have a "right" to live in the West Bank and Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to make it free of Jews, sounds good at first but is a false argument. Of course nobody should support the expulsion of any group from anywhere for religious reasons, but a settlement is an extension of Israeli sovreignty not just a Jewish community in the West Bank. Turkey wouldnt have a right to establish safe Turkish cities in N Iraq protected by the Turkish military even though I think everyone would agree that Turkish communities have a right to live where they live now in Northern Iraq.
The idea of historic right is even stranger and probably has even less support from anyone in Israel . The argument I have heard from Israelis themselves is always more a matter of pragmatic security concerns and not wanting to look weak. Even on Gaza I have heard most of those who opposed the removal of the settlements talk about Lebanon and how the withdraw from there caused attacks. Only a few crazies actually argued that the removal of the settlements was because Israel has a historic right to Gaza. Of course in the case of Gaza there isnt the history there that exists in the W Bank but to claim land from 2000 years ago is just plain crazy and while people may feel an attachment to something for cultural reasons that is far different than feeling like something even a few hundreds of years ago can give one a right to land today.
"Perhaps you're one of those rare anti-Zionists who really care about the economic viability and sustainability of a future Palestinian state."
Whats up with all of this "ZIonist" and "antiZionist" stuff. I watched the PBS documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict earlier this week and in the entire 3 hours didnt hear the word Zionist once. It seems like a buzz word that just causes confusion. Israel exists as a state and while one can dispute the morality of how it was founded, after 3 generations it doesnt really matter anymore. I'm guessing that most people who call themselves Zionists support the continuation of the state of Israel as it is today without the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and with eventual peace with a new Palestinian neighbor state. I would also guess that most people who call themselves antiZionists support the exact same thing. Of course there are crazies on both side who demand either utopian goals (one binational state, no state, ...) or hate filled ethnic cleansing type things (pushing Palestinians into Jordan, pushing all Israelis out of Israel). But even among those arguing on this site I dont see anyone who would openly support the hateful solutions that the other side is convinced they believe. If "Zionist" means supporting settlements, talking about how Palestinians have no real right to live in the West Bank, or that Arab/Muslims are fundamentally evil and have always and will always hate Jews, then I would oppose those views and be an antiZionist.
If antiZionist means believing the only solution is a single state called Palestine with a Palestinian flag and no Jewish aspects to it, and that until such a goal is reached any violent act is justified, then I would oppose those views and perhaps be a Zionist. Luckilly very few people anywhere believe in such crazy things and Im guessing that the extremists on both side just look through Google until they find each other and then like going at it since it reinforces their views about the other side ("see those who support the Palestinans really are antiSemitic" or "see Zionists really are racists and want to exterminate the Palestinians")
--
just for reference, the map was taken from http://www.mideastweb.org/map_israel_settlements.htm
This is 2005, with all the marriages between blood lines in the past 2000 years why even look at blood lines.
You have to look at what People consider themselves TODAY.
The majority of the People who now live in the West Bank and Gaza consider themselves to be Palestinians.
The majority of the People who live in Israel proper consider themselves to be Israeli Jews.
That is what this all comes down to.
The Road map to Peace calls for a two State Solution with a Viable Palestinian State.
Let us go ahead and make that Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza.
That we do not have that State with its official Borders is the Problem Now.
Everyone is quite aware that there are some 1,200,000 or so Arabs living inside Israel Proper. Almost every single nation on earth is made up of more then one ethnic group.
So instead of forcing people to move, just fix the borders.
The 400,000 or so Jewish settlers will then be living in Palestine.
Let there be a five to ten year period on which they can decide on their own whether or not they like living in Palestine or if they want to move to the Official State of Israel.
Once they choose on their own, Israel can then help them financially to move.
Lets not have the forced move like in Gaza…….
The most important thing we can do for Peace Now and not in the distant future is to make the Palestinian State NOW! That will end the reason for the conflict.
Israel with some 5,000,000 or so Jews and 1,200,000 Arabs.
Palestine with some 4,000,000 or so Palestinians and some 400,000 Jews.
There is conflict because the Palestinians are being Oppressed not because a Jew lives down the Road.
I might not be saying this if there were not already Arabs living with Jews in Israel Proper.
The other Current Problem is the Wall inside the West Bank instead of on the Pre 1967 (Green Line) Border.
If the Wall was on the Green Line. The Jews who do not like living East of the line can choose on their own to move West of the Line.
>>I see only ONE such anti-Arab racist. The others are calling it like they see it without dipping into anti-Arab racism.
>Who knows? I guess, just as many people accuse the entire left of anti-Semitism because of one or two random people who post in anonymous online discussion boards there is a tendency to read too much into the views of the open racism in many of the antiPalestinian posts too.
I've been lurking here long enough to have realized that the anti-Arab posts are coming from one person using different handles but whose unique style unmistakably shines through them all.
On this discussion board we've got at least three antisemitic posters identifying by either name or handle - JA, nessie and TW (whose writing style usually shines through those posts he doesn't use his mind boggling nym for. Then we have the LaRouch/Nazoid boy who doesn't or barely uses capital letters. So that's at least one anonymous troll.
>>There's no need to use their ancestors' actions in this regard as a majority of them are doing that quite fine for decades now.
>See, I'd actually call that statement racist since if you are referring to actions of Palestinians, the majority has never engaged in any sort of attack of any kind against any Israeli.It's the racism of blaming a whole group for the actions of a few members and many of all political stripes are guilty of it.
Israealis are not all guilty for the actions of the Israeli government and Palestinians are notall guilty of the actions of a few militia groups (even if in both cases you may have a majority effectively supporting attacks on civilians).
I was referring to the broad picture of atrocities which may also be directed at Israeli property. Plus, you have been shown you're profoundly ignorant of many facts re the conflict, so I'm inclined to figure that you've learned only about the minority of atrocities. You (plural) tend to not learn of anti-Jewish atrocities that seem too painful for you to bear in mind. Last time I checked, even stone throwing registered as an attack, and potentially lethal at that. Additionally, many Palestinians have initiated hostile actions independently of the terrorist groups, and at least during the 1st and 2nd intifadas there undoubtedly was majority support among the Palestinians for attacks on Israelis. OTOH, I can't recall even one occasion where most Israelis supported attacking the Palestinians.
>>Insinuating those who want some of the settlements somewhat remote from the Green Line to remain are racists?
>I wouldnt call all settlers racist, for example I wouldnt include 2nd generation settlers, the ultrareligious who really just want to live in some specific place for a religious reason or the small number of "settlements" in the West Bank that are continuation of pre1948 Jewish communities.
Aha.
>To desire a settlement in the middle of the West Bank isnt racist on the surface but I wouldn't doubt that most who support such settlements are racist against Palestinians and probably all Arabs and Muslims.
Sorry to see you can make such a sweeping unsupported statement with such ease, but at least you're being candid.
>The problem with the settlements these days is mainly a pragmatic one. If one supports a one state solution I guess one would support settlements, but if there will eventually be two states there is no way Ariel (for example) can continue to exist and the longer it exists the harder it will be for there to ever be peace since at some point you have 2nd and 3rd generation settlers who feel attached to their land not because they want to make a political point but because its where they and their parents have lived.
I counter-argue that Ariel is surrounded from the north and west by Jewish settled territory (in the map you enclose), so the problem is far less severe than you're presenting. I see no problem annexing this entire settlement bloc to Israel proper.
>Of course, there are many false arguments for settlemements that are thrown out to pull on people's emotions, but I have a feeling that only foreign supporters of Israel and almost no Israelis would buy into them.
>For example, the argument that Jews have a "right" to live in the West Bank and Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to make it free of Jews, sounds good at first but is a false argument. Of course nobody should support the expulsion of any group from anywhere for religious reasons, but a settlement is an extension of Israeli sovreignty not just a Jewish community in the West Bank. Turkey wouldnt have a right to establish safe Turkish cities in N Iraq protected by the Turkish military even though I think everyone would agree that Turkish communities have a right to live where they live now in Northern Iraq.
I never heard about any Iraqi territory being disputed by Turkey under any pretext in the last decade.
>The idea of historic right is even stranger and probably has even less support from anyone in Israel . Only a few crazies actually argued that the removal of the settlements was because Israel has a historic right to Gaza. Of course in the case of Gaza there isnt the history there that exists in the W Bank but to claim land from 2000 years ago is just plain crazy and while people may feel an attachment to something for cultural reasons that is far different than feeling like something even a few hundreds of years ago can give one a right to land today.
If you want to talk claiming rights based off more recent history than 2 millennia, fine. Even if we disregard the situation up to the 11th century when Jewish communities had still existed even in places like Rafah and Gaza but were destroyed by the Crusaders, Jews also had had an unbroken presence in Judea and Samaria during the last centuries - take for example Hebron, and even Jenin (see http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=876 for proof) (I don't consider east Jerusalem part of the disputed territories so I won't count the ethnically cleansed Jewish community there).
>>Perhaps you're one of those rare anti-Zionists who really care about the economic viability and sustainability of a future Palestinian state.
Whats up with all of this "ZIonist" and "antiZionist" stuff. I watched the PBS documentary about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict earlier this week and in the entire 3 hours didnt hear the word Zionist once. It seems like a buzz word that just causes confusion. Israel exists as a state and while one can dispute the morality of how it was founded, after 3 generations it doesnt really matter anymore. I'm guessing that most people who call themselves Zionists support the continuation of the state of Israel as it is today without the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza and with eventual peace with a new Palestinian neighbor state. I would also guess that most people who call themselves antiZionists support the exact same thing. Of course there are crazies on both side who demand either utopian goals (one binational state, no state, ...) or hate filled ethnic cleansing type things (pushing Palestinians into Jordan, pushing all Israelis out of Israel). But even among those arguing on this site I dont see anyone who would openly support the hateful solutions that the other side is convinced they believe. If "Zionist" means supporting settlements, talking about how Palestinians have no real right to live in the West Bank, or that Arab/Muslims are fundamentally evil and have always and will always hate Jews, then I would oppose those views and be an antiZionist.
If antiZionist means believing the only solution is a single state called Palestine with a Palestinian flag and no Jewish aspects to it, and that until such a goal is reached any violent act is justified, then I would oppose those views and perhaps be a Zionist. Luckilly very few people anywhere believe in such crazy things and Im guessing that the extremists on both side just look through Google until they find each other and then like going at it since it reinforces their views about the other side ("see those who support the Palestinans really are antiSemitic" or "see Zionists really are racists and want to exterminate the Palestinians")
Crikey! That was one lengthy evasion of my question. I'm not too concerned with how you define yourself vis-a-vis Zion. I'm still awaiting your view about the question that followed which you excised. You're afraid addressing it, or you can't? Either way, it's a serious and legitimate question and hopefully another anti-Zionist will step up to the plate if you can't or won't.
Countries come and go.
Where's the Soviet Union today? Where's the Third Reich? Where's Czechoslovakia? Where's Yugoslavia? Where's Rhodesia? Where's Languedoc? Where's Bavaria? Where's Bengal? Where's New Granada? Where's Hawai'i? Where's the Republic of Texas? Where's Tibet? Where's the United Arab Republic? Where is Katanga? Where is Transvaal? Where is Ubangi-Shari? Where’s Sikkim? Where’s Manchukuo? Where’s Nejd? Where’s Little Armenia? Where’s Khiva? Where’s Magadha? Where’s Edessa? Where’s Malaya? Where’s Sarawak? Where’s Courland? Where’s Livonia? Where’s Aragon? Where’s Selisia? Where’s Wallachia? Where’s the DDR? Where's the CSA?
Countries come and go. Israel's days are numbered. Get used to it.